Double-Decker Couch:We already got the Double Decker Couch in MetalBeard's Sea Cow. Overall the set is really unnecessary the car would have been better in a £4.99 set with Emmet, It really a minifigure pack: new additions such as Ghost Vitruvius, Siting Uni-Kitty are great and Benny for £19.99 is good for those who cannot buy the larger sets. We should have got some string.

Bad Cop Car Chase:We really could have got this build in the Bad Cop's Pursuit set as a 2 in 1.

Batman & Super Angry Kitty Attack:Super Angry Kitty is the only reason this set was made.

I think that LEGO is really stretching The LEGO theme now. Can we have other stuff that was featured in the movie? An expansion of Cloud Cuckoo Land or the submarine...

I like these...a chance to get things like the double decker couch and Benny that you could only get in more expensive sets. I also like a smiling Lord business and ghost vitrvious. The Angry Kitty variants and Batman are nice too.

Yes it's a different batman head. This one has an exaggerated clenched teeth similar to the SDCC Zur-En-Aarh, but more importantly has squinted eyes with black outline. Which is most accurate to film depictions where the eye bags are blackened with mascara.

If that is it for the Lego Movie theme then it's a pretty feeble ending, given the great sets that have preceded it.

The Batman/Angry Kitty looks like a glorified polybag. Another non-descript micro-manager and robo-skeleton - wow, thanks Lego. Angry Kitty is nice but surely there is a new vehicle/building she could have been released with.

Bad Cop's car is probably the best of the three but as someone has already said why wasn't this part of a 2 for 1 with 70802. Having not done that it seems a pointless release at this stage. And the car looks the same as the MOC in this video so is this even real?

And finally the double decker couch. Surely this is fake as well. None of it makes sense. Why pair Emmet's car with the couch? Why is President Business part of the set? Ghost Vitruvius is great (if real) but again what connection does he have with the car and/or couch? The couch made perfect sense when included with Sea Cow and included all the characters (apart from Batman) who were on it in the sea. To be honest I could have Photoshopped that cover and I really hope that is what it is.

The minifigure numbers on that Double Decker couch do seem unlikely. I can see the justification for the set though. I bet TLG had a lot of parents moaning that the double decker couch is so far only available with the Sea Cow and wanted a cheaper set with it for their kids - while it seems a stupid thing for a set it's central in the film. However on its own it's a bit dull so add the car to make it more feasable as a set. The number of minifigures and Benny randomly having a giant sausage however do seem very odd.

I'm delighted; a few months ago I pieced the double-decker couch together using TLG's replacement parts services, but it was going to cost nearly double what the RRP of this will be. I'd have been annoyed now if I went through with it!

Many people seem upset that these are not large sets, but I'm happy to see smaller accessory sets that are packed with mini figures. I think part of what is throwing people off is that Lego doesn't usually do sets like this, but I think it accomplishes two important things: 1) it meets requests for characters and items that parents want to get for their kids and 2) It keeps the Lego Movie in people's minds during a time when the Lego movie has come and gone...but there will be a sequel in a couple years...not sure if this is feasible for 2016 as well though.

Many people seem upset that these are not large sets, but I'm happy to see smaller accessory sets that are packed with mini figures. I think part of what is throwing people off is that Lego doesn't usually do sets like this, but I think it accomplishes two important things: 1) it meets requests for characters and items that parents want to get for their kids and 2) It keeps the Lego Movie in people's minds during a time when the Lego movie has come and gone...but there will be a sequel in a couple years...not sure if this is feasible for 2016 as well though.

Also, introducing new small sets is more important than introducing more large sets right now, because the small sets from the first half of 2014 are going to be disappearing from shelves much sooner than the large sets from the second half. Thus, new sets have to take their place if the LEGO Group still wants to ensure that the LEGO Movie theme covers a range of price points.

I do wonder if this is the last we'll see of the LEGO Movie theme until the next installment of the film franchise, or whether it will have enough momentum for a summer wave with potentially larger sets. There are definitely some big and distinctive subjects in the LEGO Movie that haven't yet appeared as sets, namely the submarine, the twin-rotor Super Secret Police helicopter, and the western race car Of these, I think the latter is the least likely to show up as a set, since it is a rickety and not very flashy-looking design. The submarine would be difficult to release as a set due to its size and inevitably high price point, but it's definitely the sort of thing that would have plenty of shelf appeal.

Character-wise, I am very satisfied with the new wave. It's great that it includes a lot of the characters with new expressions. They are still basic enough that most of them can be the definitive versions of the characters for people who missed out on previous versions, but also unique enough that they won't be completely redundant for people who have the previous versions. Also, as I observed with the previous versions of Emmet, people who make Brickfilms are going to love the wide range of expressions that will now be available for many of the characters!

All in all, I'm just glad that the Angry kitty was not a stupid Comicon exclusive and is going to be in a regular set.

There were never really any concerns about that — the same article that revealed this set in the first place was very clear about it being a new set for January 2015 rather than a Comic-Con exclusive item.

I'm sure you've put a lot of thought into whether or not it's worth it to get the Sea Cow, but I can say that my younger brother has it and to me it seems entirely worth the high cost. The set is huge, creative, and packed with detail. Still, I can definitely agree that the Sea Cow is outside a lot of people's means and this Double-Decker Couch set will be a great way for people who can't justify getting the Sea Cow to get not only the couch but also Emmet's car and an assortment of major LEGO Movie characters!

Also, I'm glad President Business finally gets a smiling face in the new sets. There are plenty of points in the movie that he smiles, and yet all the sets this year have him looking angry or upset (probably to help kids understand that he's a bad guy with a bad attitude).

All in all, I'm just glad that the Angry kitty was not a stupid Comicon exclusive and is going to be in a regular set.

There were never really any concerns about that — the same article that revealed this set in the first place was very clear about it being a new set for January 2015 rather than a Comic-Con exclusive item.

I'm sure you've put a lot of thought into whether or not it's worth it to get the Sea Cow, but I can say that my younger brother has it and to me it seems entirely worth the high cost. The set is huge, creative, and packed with detail. Still, I can definitely agree that the Sea Cow is outside a lot of people's means and this Double-Decker Couch set will be a great way for people who can't justify getting the Sea Cow to get not only the couch but also Emmet's car and an assortment of major LEGO Movie characters!...

I did, the main point to myself is I would rather buy the 'lesser' of the plumber and ice cream sets due to the vehicles in those sets, and a couple of others (unikitty palace set) over the Sea cow which is not going to be discounted in the US I believe. For that kind of money I also want cloth sails.I really think, as absurd as I know it will sound to some people, that if the set had cloth sails it would sell a lot more and I would have been more interested in it. It would have also justified the large price on it to me.Also really, ship without cloth sails aside, the only thing I really wanted was seasick kitty after that, and just broke down and bought one off of BL for about 15 bucks.So while a neat set, I just realized there are other sets I want to buy with that money.I think it definitely is good value for that double-decker couch if one 19.99 USD though. Kinda glad for myself there is no seasick kitty, but you would think if there was one set besides the ship to have it it would have been this set coming out. Guess they are still seeing the kitty as a reason to buy the Ship though. Nice to see a sitting kitty though

I don't entirely understand why people say they'd prefer cloth sails for the Sea Cow. I get that they make sets more realistic, but they are also considerably more specialized than brick-built solutions, and the Sea Cow is not a realistic subject to begin with. The cars and trees in the original Town Plan were more realistic than brick-built cars and trees but I don't think a lot of people would prefer them to a brick-built solution. Plus, making your own cloth sails is a lot easier than making your own high-quality LEGO bricks.

I can definitely see why the Sea Cow does not have cloth sails — it's based on the ship's appearance in the movie, and part of the movie's appeal was the idea that everything (except, of course, the relics) was made of LEGO. If everything up to and including explosions and water effects is brick-built, then to many viewers it would feel like a cop-out to use giant single-piece cloth sails for the Sea Cow rather than a more creative brick-built solution.

Not saying people are wrong to like cloth sails. They have very real advantages in terms of their texture and flexibility. But it's pretty clear to me why the Sea Cow didn't have them, and sacrificing the set's uniqueness and accuracy to the film to make it more "realistic" seems to run counter to the whole idea behind its design.

It's not though. For the 20 minutes I did manage to stay awake the first time I watched, I noticed the sails in the movie's ship were brick built (using 1 x X plates I think) - I was half asleep at the time mind. The retail version obviously isn't.

Hmmm. Yeah, but I think the idea was that everything is supposed to be brick built; just like an 8 year old would do. I also think the sails may be different because it was using the wind to sail as opposed to just drifting on the water. I don't really know. I will have to watch it again.

It's not though. For the 20 minutes I did manage to stay awake the first time I watched, I noticed the sails in the movie's ship were brick built (using 1 x X plates I think) - I was half asleep at the time mind. The retail version obviously isn't.

The one in the movie is much bigger, and that's where most of its differences are from. In the movie, for instance, it uses Technic panels only for the ENDS of the sails, while the middle section of each sail is built from different sizes of curved slopes. And in the movie the gold detailing on the back includes an entire gold octopus, something that would never have fit on the retail version.

Slight simplification is something I can understand when converting an impractically huge set to something that can be sold at retail without asking customers to take out a mortgage on their homes to pay for it. But a fundamental change like turning elaborate brick-built sails into billowy single-piece cloth ones just to make it more appealing to fans of traditional LEGO pirate ships would be a different beast entirely.

The Technic panels also make for more durable playability. Sure, they could have made the deck removable like with the IF, but with the panels kids can go wild without tearing cloth sails or removing anything.

Surprised anyone would say the Sea Cow is too much for what it is, it's actually one of the most well priced large sets there is. 2700 pieces, many of which are pretty large for £170? It's decently priced because it doesn't suffer the licensing cost premium of things like Orthanc, the Lego Village and the Sandcrawler.

The Sea Cow is most definitely value for money IMO, I can understand why some people just plain don't like and don't want the set, but I don't think value for money is a sensible argument against it. If you like the design, then it's really well priced for what you get.

Designers from The LEGO Group were heavily involved in the design of the vehicles and other subject matter in the movie itself (you can see footage of some of the designers' creative workshops in the special features to the Blu-Ray version of the movie), so it's a whole different beast than a typical licensed theme where the LEGO Group will be charged with creating sets based on a franchise that they had no creative involvement with. The LEGO Group didn't get to help design the ships in Guardians of the Galaxy — they just had to work with the designs and concepts they were given. But with the LEGO Movie, they were involved throughout the design process.

Why do you think TLM sets are licensed from WB? Why on earth would Lego agree to let WB use what is 90% their IP and then license it back off of them?

More likely WB licenses the relevant Lego IP off TLG and TLG gets to retain rights to the sets such that WB gets whatever profits the film makes after the license fees have been paid to TLG and TLG gets to make whatever they can off the sets + the Lego IP licensing to WB.

You see far higher value for money from TLM sets than you do from other Warner owned IPs like LotR/The Hobbit for example so it doesn't make sense to think TLG has some license fee to pay out for each and every set to Warner like they do other IPs even before you discount the insanity that would be TLG effectively paying Warner to produce characters that they largely created themselves in the first place (Benny, Emmet, etc. are all tiny variations on existing well established Lego characters).

Aanchir's point is basically exactly that- that Warner hasn't designed the theme by itself and sold it back to Lego, that Lego has designed much of it itself and so isn't going to pay license fees for something it put much of the capital into designing in the first place - it's not like LotR or Star Wars where an external company designed the entire IP from scratch and Lego adapts for it's own products, it's something that is very much based on Lego's IP from the outset.

The Lego Movie is not a TLG creation. It is wholly owned by WB, with Lego getting a small portion of profits. But all licensing rights is owned by WB, thus TLG has some level of fees to pay back to them. The contract is WB as licensor with TLG as licensee with approval rights. Essentially meaning WB creates the movie and Lego will use those scenes as inspiration for the sets they will create, including the characters and vehicles. Denmark gets to review, improve and sometimes approve/disapprove of them.

"Throughout the moviemaking process, Wilfert’s team was invited to weigh in on almost every aspect of the film. “My pitch to them was, ‘There is the contract, and then there is reality,’” says Lin. “You guys may not have certain approvals per the contract. But I’m working with your baby, and I want to treat it right. I want to make you partners.”

Here's a good article from Wall Street Journal that further states the situation.

When you call TLG Customer Service and ask for a replacement part for a TLM set or fig, they will tell you it is not allowed as it is a licensed part.

There is absolutely a licensing agreement between Warner Brothers and LEGO for usage of TLM characters, and WB most probably enjoys very healthy backend participation on TLM merchandise.

Movie financing is madly complex, mainly becuase if you structure it right you don't pay any tax even if a movie is wildly profitable. How the merchandising rights are split would mainly depend on:

1. How much of a financial stake lego took in actually funding the movie. 2. Who was pushing who? Were Lego desperate to get a movie made, or were Warner Brothers one of a string of movie companies competing for their signature. 3. The deal could have been as simple as, you make the movie, we'll keep the merchandising. Warner could have paid Lego to make it. Lego could have paid Warner to make it.

You'll never know the answers to any of the above.

The only thing you can say with any certainty is that since Lego owned the IP behind the movie, in the same way that Marvel owns the IP behind it's superhero movies, Lego would get a cut of this money.

And they they used non-Lego IP within the movie, such as Simpsons, Star Wars, Batman. That will be REALLY complicated in terms of licencing fees!

^WB already had the rights for Batman as part of a long running deal with DC, hence Batman as main character with several justice leaguers in supporting roles, but star wars, TMNT and Simpsons characters only being cameos.

I see no evidence still above that TLG is paying WB to license it's own minifig designs back off of them, it's entirely speculation still. I can still only find information confirming the opposite, that TLM is co-owned by TLG and Warner. Even on the product boxes it says that the copyright belongs to both TLG and Warner so I don't know where the idea that it's wholly owned by Warner comes from.

Presumably this is the WSJ article you intended to link? If so it still says nothing about it being a wholly owned production of WB, nothing close to that even:

If it were true, it still doesn't change the fact that TLM sets don't have the licensing premium on them that licensed sets normally do. Not being able to get them as licensed parts does not mean that they are paying a license fee - just that WB has to jointly agree how the IP can and can't be used with them to prevent say, TLG going off track with the sets from the movie making it hard for WB to fit their sequel in.

Wish I could say for certain what the arrangement is between WB and TLG, but the details just aren't enough. I only wanted to point out that the TLM is not a homegrown IP compared to what we usually consider as such. And that there may be a licensing premium added to these sets as well. But even if so, the deal must be much better than what they usually get with SW or Disney since TLM sets are very good value.

I will be buying all the new sets. Sure the couch set does not make sense but it is a way to get the main things that kids want. To the AFOLs above lets not forget that lego is first and foremost a toy, for kids. We've seen the movie right? Those kids want the car, couch, and these minifigs. Parents do not want to buy a seacow set to get them these things!! Not to mention me as an AFOL not wanting the sea cow for these figs!! At $14.99 ill buy one for me and one for my daughter. Win in my book.

Guessing they will be released on Jan 1, like the site says (at least for US), at least at LEGO. The nice thing is that many will likely be hung over on Jan 1st so if you get to the store early then you will have a chance for all the new sets.Must have 'very angry' Unikitty.